A sizeable share of funding for science comes through philanthropy, which receives little public scrutiny. Experts say Jeffrey Epstein exploited that gap to cultivate scientists and launder his reputation.
When the Epstein files were released earlier this year, computer scientist Scott Aaronson was surprised to find his name in them. He never met Epstein. In 2010, while at MIT, a proxy for Epstein reached out about potentially funding a research project. Aaronson says he’d forgotten the contact until the files surfaced. He forwarded the inquiry to his mother, who warned him to avoid “this slime machine.” He declined the offer. Aaronson notes at least one colleague did accept money and later became entangled.
Epstein had no scientific training but presented himself as a patron, funding initiatives including an exclusive 2006 physics conference. He approached researchers with praise and offers of support—proposals Aaronson recalls involving cryptography and nature—even though his donations were often modest rather than large headline gifts.
By some estimates, philanthropy supplies at least 20% of research funding at U.S. institutions. That private revenue stream faces limited government oversight: there’s no universal reporting system for gifts, and disclosure requirements are narrow. Vetting falls to institutions and individuals, which can leave reputational risk underappreciated. Jeffrey Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School, says fundraising occupied a major portion of his role and that before the Epstein scandal few people thought deeply about reputational consequences when offered money.
Universities do publish donor names and policies and many have reputational vetting processes. Roger Ali of the Association of Fundraising Professionals says institutions use those lenses to accept gifts ethically and guard against undue risk. But, critics note, schools often focus scrutiny on the largest donors. Because Epstein’s giving included many relatively small donations, he sometimes escaped the level of review reserved for major benefactors.
Scholars who study philanthropy warn the sector’s opacity enables well-off individuals to shape reputations and institutions without thorough public accountability. Stanford professor Rob Reich calls philanthropy “a significant form of power” that lacks transparency and therefore the scrutiny it deserves. He points out cases like the Sackler family—whose donations to universities and cultural institutions followed their company’s role in the opioid crisis—as another example of how giving can obscure harmful origins.
Reich argues for stronger disclosures: private universities should publicly report who gives money, how much, and any donor restrictions or intent. Such transparency would allow informed public debate and create norms for accepting or rejecting gifts. While some universities increased transparency after Epstein’s crimes came to light, Roger Ali says the sector has not seen major structural reforms; there is heightened awareness but limited change.
Reich acknowledges that not all gifts are tainted and there may be circumstances where donations from individuals with past crimes could be considered. Still, he says those deliberations should be public. Universities should make their donor policies transparent so the public can judge whether accepting a gift is appropriate and whether the institution’s values align with a donor’s history.
Greater openness about donors, amounts, and conditions, proponents say, would reduce the ability of problematic figures to use philanthropy to rehabilitate their reputations and would let institutions weigh the true costs and benefits of private support.